160. The Commission noted several matters arising from the reports of Codex Committees and Task Forces, including those matters arising form the previous session of the Commission and the Executive Committee, as contained in working documents ALINORM 04/27/10D and ALINORM 04/27/10D-Add.1.
161. The following paragraphs provide additional information on the comments made and decisions taken on certain items.
Future Work on Animal Feeding in Codex64
162. The Commission recognised in general the value for Codex to continue work on animal feeding due to its importance for the protection of consumers' health. However, it could not come to an agreement as to the recommendation of the 55thSession of the Executive Committee to postpone consideration of new work until 2008.
163. Some delegations strongly supported this recommendation in order to allow governments and industry to implement the requirements of the recently adopted Codex Code of Practice on Good Animal Feeding (CAC/GL 54–2004) and gaining experience in order to better identify areas where additional work was needed.
164. Other delegations were of the opinion that it was urgent for Codex to continue work on animal feeding and ensure the safety of products of animal origin, noting that postponing consideration of new work until 2008 would result in an undue delay of Codex work. In addition, it was stated that a Task Force was a preferred mechanism to bring available expertise together on a priority basis, compared to the use of existing Codex Committees.
165. The Commission noted the willingness of the Government of Denmark to host the Task Force again, if it was re-established and the proposal of the Delegation of Switzerland to start work on the application of HACCP system for feed and feed ingredients. The Commission also noted that the OIE was prepared to collaborate with Codex on future work in this area.
166. The Commission could not come to a conclusion on when to start future work on animal feeding. It agreed to defer consideration of this matter until its next Session.
Proposal for a New Standard on Parmesan Cheese65
167. The Commission recalled that this matter had been referred from its 27th session and agreed on the need to make progress on this matter beyond the discussion of its last session by focusing on elements that would allow making a decision on the issue, while taking into account the arguments that were put forward previously for and against the development of a new Standard for Parmesan66. The Commission noted that there continued to be a diversity of views on this matter.
66 ALINORM 04/27/41, paras 148 and 149.
168. The Delegation of the European Community, supported by many delegations, stated that it opposed the development of a Codex Standard for parmesan cheese, stressing that the name “parmesan” should not be considered as a generic term as it was a geographical indication in the territory of the European Community. The Delegation underlined that it did not seek to use Codex procedures to prevent the use of “Parmesan” as a generic term in those countries where this was the case. The Delegation proposed, in turn, to revise the Codex Standard for Extra Hard Grating Cheese (Codex Stan C 35–1978). The Delegation stated that the Commission would not be able to reach consensus as long as the term “parmesan” was used in the Standard.
169. Many other delegations, which spoke in favour of new work on a Standard for Parmesan, stressing that Codex must function as a rule-based organization, stated that the proposal for a new Standard on Parmesan cheese met both Codex Criteria for Establishing New Work Priorities and CCMMP criteria for the development and/or revision of the standards for cheese. These delegations recognised that Parmesan should be considered as a generic term. They referred to the opinion of the Legal Offices of FAO and WHO that “from a strictly legal point of view, there were no requirements to the effect that aspects of intellectual property protection be considered as criteria to be taken into consideration by Codex when deciding on acceptance of new work or adopting standards”.
170. The Representative of WIPO, referring to the exchange of correspondence between WIPO and FAO Legal Office, noted that the opinion of the FAO and WHO Legal Offices had given rise to concerns in the international intellectual property rights community and stated that international obligations for the protection of intellectual property rights in general, and of industrial property rights in particular, were stipulated in a number of international treaties administered by WIPO.
171. After an extensive debate, the Chairperson of the Commission summarised the discussion that the request for the elaboration of a new standard for Parmesan was considered to have met the CCMMP criteria for the development and/or revision of the standards for cheese and that, according to the advice provided by the Legal Offices of FAO and WHO, there was no legal impediment to the elaboration of such a standard.
172. The Delegation of the European Community expressed its reservation on the Chairperson's summary, stating that in the view of the delegation, the legal opinion of FAO and WHO was not complete. The Delegation of Italy, supported by the Delegation of the European Community, stated that in its view the CCMMP criteria had not been met.
173. Many delegations supported the Chairperson's summary. The Delegation of the United States stated that the credibility of Codex should not be undermined.
174. Recognising its inability to reach a decision on whether or not new work should start on the elaboration of a standard for parmesan, the Commission agreed to hold the issue in abeyance for possible future consideration. The Commission further encouraged those parties interested in the subject to continue informal consultations among themselves in order to determine whether and how a decision on this issue might be reached. The Commission noted that the issue could be raised at a future session of the Commission if a Member wished to do so.
175. In response to the request of the Chairperson of the CCMMP on the status of the discussion of this item in the Committee, it was clarified that the report of the Commission would be brought to the attention of the CCMMP and that, while the Commission decided to hold the issue in abeyance and not to provide specific instructions to the CCMMP, nothing would prevent Members of the Commission from bringing up this matter at future sessions of the CCMMP.
176. The Delegation of the United States reserved its position on the conclusion of the discussion.
Future Work on Antimicrobial Resistance67
177. The Commission recalled that antimicrobial resistance had been a subject of discussion within Codex for some time and reaffirmed the importance and urgency for Codex to start work on antimicrobial resistance related to non-human use of antimicrobials. The Commission recalled that, upon its request, two joint FAO/OIE/WHO Expert Workshops68 had been held in 2003 and 2004.
178. The Commission noted that other international organisations had already been working on the issue of antimicrobial resistance, in particular: WHO for aspects related to the clinical and non-clinical use of antimicrobials and human health, and OIE for aspects related to animal health. It was also noted that the Commission had adopted the Code of Practice to Minimise and Contain Antimicrobial Resistance69 at the present session (see para. 59). The Delegation of Switzerland proposed to combine the circular letter with a data request on projects which are already underway, with the aim of avoiding duplication of work and to accelerate progress.
69 ALINORM 05/28/31, Appendix VIII
179. The Commission reaffirmed that any Codex work on antimicrobial resistance should stay in the remit of the Commission's mandate, should be based on sound science and follow risk analysis principles, should take full account of the work of other organisations to avoid duplication of work, and should recognise the importance of a holistic approach to solving the question at hand.
180. Many delegations, in favour of the establishment of a new Task Force, were of the opinion that work should start as soon as possible. However, it was noted that the calendar of Codex meetings for 2006–2007 might not allow for the inclusion of an additional meeting before 2007.
181. The Director-General of OIE highlighted the importance of antimicrobial resistance and reiterated support for joint action by Codex and OIE in setting international standards to contain antimicrobial resistance. He informed the Commission that the 73rd OIE General Session (May 2005) had adopted international standards on antimicrobial resistance and that a series of meetings were planned to prepare additional texts to be submitted at the next OIE General Session in 2006. The Director-General expressed the willingness of OIE to collaborate with FAO, WHO and Codex on this matter.
182. The Commission took note of a summary of an “Informal sharing of ideas regarding proposed terms of reference for future Codex work on antimicrobial resistance”, as contained in CAC/28 LIM. 32. The Commission supported the proposal in general, which was considered as providing a good basis for determining future Codex work on antimicrobial resistance. It was however suggested that Codex future work should have a clear focus on public health and ensure a holistic approach to solving the question at hand, should address antimicrobials in general so as to cover the use of pesticides and additives and not be restricted solely to antimicrobial drugs, should also include animal feed. The scope should take into account ongoing work in other international organisations, in particular OIE and should adhere to the Working Principles for Risk Analysis in the Framework of the Codex Alimentarius.
183. The Commission noted that, according to the “Criteria for the Establishment of Subsidiary Bodies of the Codex Alimentarius Commission”70, before the Commission could establish a Task Force, the Commission needed: to agree upon a name of the Task Force; to define the terms of reference that should be limited to the immediate task at hand and clearly state the objective(s) to be achieved with the indication of either (i) the number of sessions to be convened, or (ii) the date (year) by which the work was expected to be completed.
70 Codex Alimentarius Commission, Procedural Manual (pages 69–70) – 14th Edition
184. The Commission agreed, in principle, to the establishment of an ad hoc Intergovernmental Task Force to deal with the issue related to antimicrobial resistance. It was agreed that a final decision as to its establishment would be taken at the next session. In order to facilitate this decision, the Commission agreed that the Codex Secretariat in collaboration with FAO and WHO would prepare a Circular Letter based on the proposal in LIM 32, taking account the above discussion, in order to request comments on what should be the specific terms of reference of such a Task Force.
185. Many delegations welcomed the offer of the Republic of Korea to host the Task Force if it was to be established. The Commission also welcomed the proposed active participation of the OIE in the future work of Codex on this matter.
186. The Delegation of Argentina, while not objecting to this conclusion, stated that the Commission, in making a final decision on the establishment of an ad hoc Task Force, should give due consideration to the implications of establishing an additional Codex body in view of the limited resources available to developing countries, and that it was important to closely analyse whether the activities proposed could not be undertaken by existing Codex subsidiary bodies.
187. The Commission noted the views of the CCNASWP and the CCLAC concerning the inclusion of Clupea bentincki in the Standard for Canned Sardines and Sardine Type Products. The Delegation of Chile expressed its concern with the delay in the standard setting process initiated in 1996, having complied with all the requirements established by the Committee on Fish and Fishery Products, and asked the Commission to give priority to the question of the inclusion of Clupea bentincki as a sardine type species in order to achieve progress. The Delegation of Morocco recalled that this question was still under consideration in the CCFFP and informed the Commission that on the initiative of the Chair of the Committee, informal contacts were underway with the Delegation of Chile in order to find a compromise solution to this question by the next session of the said Committee. The Commission noted that this question was under consideration in the Committee on Fish and Fishery Products and recommended that the Committee address it as a matter of priority.
Clarification of the Reference to “A Reasonable Interval” in the Codex Guidelines for Food Import Control System71
71 ALINORM 05/28/30, para. 114
188. The Commission adopted the addition of a footnote to reference to the “WTO decision WT/MIN (01)17” to paragraph 35 of the Codex Guidelines for Food Control System (CAC/GL 47-2003), as proposed by the Committee.
Year of Publication72
72 ALINORM 05/28/23, paras. 847ndash;88
189. The Commission agreed with the proposal of the Committee to include a footnote to the Recommended Methods of Analysis (CAC/STAN 234) to the effect that “the most updated version of the method should be used, in application of ISO/IEC 17025: 1999”, as analysts are required to use the most updated version of methods of analysis in application of ISO/IEC 17025:1999, referred to in the Guidelines for the Assessment of the Competence of Testing Laboratories Involved in the Import and Export Control of Foods (CAC/GL 27).
190. The Delegation of Japan pointed out that the Principles for the Establishment or Selection of Codex Sampling Procedures in the Procedural Manual referred to the Sampling Plans for Prepackaged Foods (CAC/STAN 233), that had been superseded by the General Guidelines on Sampling adopted in 2004. The Delegation therefore proposed that the Committee on General Principles and the Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling consider the review and possible update of the entire section to take into account the adoption of the new Guidelines. The Commission agreed that this matter should be considered by the next session of the Committee on General Principles.
Mandate of the CCFAC73
73 ALINORM 05/28/12, para. 9 and Appendix II
191. The Commission agreed that the proposal of the Committee for the revision of its terms of reference in relation to sampling plans would be taken into account in the drafting of the terms of reference for the Committees on Food Additives and on Contaminants and Toxins in Food ( see para. 143).
General Standard on Food Additives
192. The Commission agreed to amend Annex B (Food Category System) of the General Standard for Food Additives by including coconut water as an example in the description of food category 14.1.2.1 (Fruit Juices) as proposed by the CCFAC.
General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Foods (GSCTF)74
74 ALINORM 05/28/12, para. 119 and Appendix XVII
193. The Commission agreed to revoke the maximum levels for lead in specific commodity Codex standards for processed meat products, as proposed by the Committee.
Provision of Scientific Advice75
75 ALINORM 05/28/12, para. 224
194. The Commission noted the concern expressed by CCFAC with regard to the serious budgetary situation of WHO for JECFA activities (see also para. 109).
Country of Origin Labellin76
195. The Commission noted that the Committee on Food Labelling had agreed not to undertake new work on country of origin labelling and that consideration of this Agenda Item should be discontinued.
Reference to Acceptance in Codex Standard77
196. The Commission agreed that the references to acceptance in the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods should be deleted as a consequential amendment to the abolition of the Acceptance Procedure.
Notification of Acceptance in Codex standards for fresh fruits and vegetables78
78 ALINORM 05/28/9D-Add.1 para. 22
197. The Commission agreed to delete the footnotes to Sections 1 - Definition of produce and 7.2 - Non-retail containers on the notification of acceptance throughout Codex standards for fresh fruits and vegetables, for consistency with its previous decision to abolish the Acceptance Procedure in the Procedural Manual (see paras. 32–36).
Revisions (specific) of Codex standards for fresh fruits and vegetables79
79 ALINORM 05/28/9D-Add.1 para. 30
198. The Commission noted the request of the Committee on the possibility to establish a more expeditious procedure for revising Codex standards for fresh fruits and vegetables when considering minor changes such as additions and/or deletions of some provisions (e.g. the introduction of new varieties) for which the presentation of a project document might not be considered imperative. The Commission noted that a similar situation might arise in relation to updating of other commodity standards.
199. The Commission agreed that this matter should be considered in a general context and requested the Committee on General Principles to look into this issue at its next session.
